 A security guard was fired after he was unable to work more than two hours past his regular shift. The guard had worked his regular shift from 7am to 3pm at a local hospital. At 3 pm his supervisor told him that he would have to remain on post because his relief was not coming and the supervisor needed to find a replacement. At 4:45 pm the security guard was told that he would have to stay and work a double shift. But the guard was a single parent and had to leave to pick up his son from school. The next day he was fired.
The security guard was awarded unemployment benefits and the employer appealed, arguing that the employer’s General Post Orders mandated officers to remain on duty until relieved. An attorney from the Claimant Advocacy Program argued that the security guard did not abandon the post, but had instead left a post arbitrarily imposed by the employer without advance notice. Ruling in favor of the security guard, the court said the guard could reasonably expect that his duties would end at 3pm when his shift ended, and that any hold-over would be minimal. The court further held, that for the employer to expect the claimant to work a double shift with no notice, especially in light of the fact that they knew he had to pick up his son from school, was patently unreasonable and affirmed the decision to award the security guard unemployment benefits. The Claimant Advocacy Program (CAP) is a free legal counseling service available to individuals who file unemployment compensation appeals in the District of Columbia. Call 202-974-8150 for more info.  A hair stylist was fired for failing to report for his scheduled shift. The stylist had been on his way to work when he began to experience heart palpitations, shortness of breath and delusions. He ended up at his parent’s home, collapsed in their doorway, and missed his shift. A few days later, the claimant missed work again, and ended up in the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with acute anxiety disorder. The manager then fired the hair stylist, despite his doctor's note confirming the illness. The stylist appealed his denial of unemployment compensation and the judge found in his favor after the Claimant Advocacy Program attorney successfully argued that the employer failed to present any evidence that the claimant’s behavior was willful or intentional. The court held that any misconduct disqualification requires proof that a claimant intentionally disregarded an employer’s expectations and proof that the claimant understood that conduct at issue could lead to discharge.
The Claimant Advocacy Program (CAP) is a free legal counseling service available to individuals who file unemployment compensation appeals in the District of Columbia. Call 202-974-8150 for more info.  A local animal hospital fired a veterinary assistant for excessive tardiness. After denial of her unemployment benefits, the employee appealed and requested a hearing. The court found that the employee had indeed been tardy, but a Claimant Advocacy Program attorney successfully argued that the employee never received a warning that her job was in jeopardy prior to termination and that there was no evidence that the employee’s attendance pattern harmed the employer’s business interest. The court found that the employee was not deliberately tardy, there was no harm to the business interest to the employer and granted the employee’s claim for full unemployment benefits.
The Claimant Advocacy Program (CAP) is a free legal counseling service available to individuals who file unemployment compensation appeals in the District of Columbia. Call 202-974-8150 for more info.  The United States Postal Service refused to give reasonable accommodations to a pregnant postal worker and fired her. After challenging her termination, the worker was reinstated and awarded back pay. During her period of unemployment she had received unemployment compensation. Because the employee received back pay, the DC Department of Employment Services issued the postal worker a notice of overpayment and demanded the return of $8,616 in unemployment compensation. The worker sought the assistance of the Claimant Advocacy Program in relation to whether she was liable to repay the unemployment compensation. The judge agreed with CAP and ruled that the claimant was not liable to repay DOES, as the law holds that it is the responsibility of the employer to withhold an amount equal to the benefits paid from the back pay award and if the employer fails to do so, DOES may collect the amount paid directly from the employer and not the claimant.
The Claimant Advocacy Program (CAP) is a free legal counseling service available to individuals who file unemployment compensation appeals in the District of Columbia. Call 202-974-8150 for more info. |
|
Share any story to Facebook, Twitter or via email!
Just click on the story and then click on the appropriate social media icon at right! |
COPYRIGHT METRO WASHINGTON LABOR COUNCIL AFL-CIO 2022
202-974-8150; [email protected] |